Evolution vs. Creationism

[IndigoSensor]

I might have posted here before, but am too lazy to look up.

It is quite simple to me:

Evolution is subject to the scientific method, therefore is a scientific topic. Where as creationism is not subject to the scientific method, and therefore is not a scientific topic, it is a religious idea. As such, evolution should be taught in k-12, creationism should not (it could be taught in a theory in a philosphy class).

Regardless of ones religious convictions, I can't see how one can deny this to be true.

An analogy is something like the topic of ghosts/spirits (something I very strongly believe in). Despite that, this should not be taught in k-12, with the exception of maybe a philosphy class. This is simply because it is (more or less) a religious topic, that is not subject to the scientific method, so it has no place to be taught in school.

I have yet to hear an argument from the otherside to convince me otherwise, even slightly.

 

[just me]

Creating something does not have to be religious. Man makes it religious.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Creating something does not have to be religious. Man makes it religious.

It is still not scientific, and is still a "magical" idea, therefore my opinion still holds.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

I think there should be the option in the upper grades to learn religion, if the individual wishes to be educated on the subject(s). I don't think it should be required, though.

 

[IndigoSensor]

I think there should be the option in the upper grades to learn religion, if the individual wishes to be educated on the subject(s). I don't think it should be required, though.

Yes I agree with this a well (11th, 12th grade). I think it should be of independent content by the school itself though. If the govenment tried to regulate it it would be horribly muttled and, well, bad.

 

[just me]

For all we know, science itself could have been created. Life is "magical" in and of itself. Science keeps "making all these new discoveries". Science is trying to create life. If science can create life, I would call that a contradiction of its own views by disallowing creation.

Not trying to reason with or change anyone's views....

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Really, all science does is describe and predict what is already in existence. Existence itself is still not answerable by science, and very possibly won't be for a long time (if it can be at all).

 

[just me]

Can't help but add this:
People, in all their wisdom and understanding, think they are the most intelligent life forms in the universe because it is all we know in science. The more we learn, the less smart we used to be. The more we create, the more possible it becomes we were created ourselves.

 

[BenW]

The implication that the universe "must" have a creator is fallacious.
If everything must ultimately have some form of intentional creation to exist, who created God?
Why is it logical to believe that God "always was", when assuming the same thing of the universe itself is not?

In the end, the only logical thing to do is take a cue from science, and admit to (perhaps temporary) ignorance, rather than make things up. Not knowing the answer to something is perfectly OK; "knowing" the wrong answer is not.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

True, but then you also have to keep the possibility of a creator existing. It's kind of all up in the air.

 

[TheLastMohican]

True, but then you also have to keep the possibility of a creator existing. It's kind of all up in the air.

I'll file that away right next to the possibility of all the electrons in my body simultaneously tunneling to the other side of the room. I'm very open-minded, see.

 

[IndigoSensor]

For all we know, science itself could have been created. Life is "magical" in and of itself. Science keeps "making all these new discoveries". Science is trying to create life. If science can create life, I would call that a contradiction of its own views by disallowing creation.

Not trying to reason with or change anyone's views....

Of course science was invented. The distinction is that science is a tool that can prove or disprove things. I want to restress this: creationism is not subject to science due to it's "magical" nature, therefore has no way to be proven, where as evolution can be subjected to scientific testing and theory, it is editable, creationism is not. While evolution is not proven, it sure as hell has alot of theory backing it up clearly pointing to it's validity. Quantum mechanics is very much like this, it is very diffucalt to prove the theories. However, experiements clearly point to it's truthfulness and signify that it does indeed work.

Can't help but add this:
People, in all their wisdom and understanding, think they are the most intelligent life forms in the universe because it is all we know in science. The more we learn, the less smart we used to be. The more we create, the more possible it becomes we were created ourselves.

I believe in extrateressterial life (alien) and I do not think we are the most intelligent beings in this universe. You're trying to say by making more discoveries that we are limiting ourselves? You are sadly mistaken. You're pretty much saying that one is more intelligent by living in a fantasy world.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

I'll file that away right next to the possibility of all the electrons in my body simultaneously tunneling to the other side of the room. I'm very open-minded, see.

Don't stick your head in the microwave, you'll get cancer.

 

[bamf]

Science answers how, religion answers why. People are free to explore either to what ever extent they want. The laws however have to be followed, including separation of church and state. Public schools are funded by just that, the public, and therefor should not teach any religion (history of religion though is perfectly acceptable, it's also the history of culture. Explanations of religions is also acceptable, but speculation from religious viewpoints is not).

The question that always trips people (religious and scientific) up is what happened in the beginning. Maybe we're looking at this completely wrong. What if time isn't actually linear or ultimately doesn't exist in the way we currently understand it?

 

[TheLastMohican]

Don't stick your head in the microwave, you'll get cancer.

Would you kindly explain that reference?

 

[midnightmelody]

For schools,

evolutionism all the way.


I do believe that there is a divine creator, but not that he created everything in 7 days. It's much too simplistic. I feel that theists should not be so silly as to take away all the beautiful complexities of evolution. That's like an insult to their God, IMO. But this is a very difficult topic, and I'm pretty biased.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Would you kindly explain that reference?

Somehow in the strange recesses of my mind I thought it was relevant -- but really, I just thought it was funny in a strangely ironic sort of way.

I really don't understand what I was getting at now, though.

 

[just me]

I have grown accustomed to my inadequacy in relating to others my thoughts and feelings into words. Being misunderstood is the norm. Maybe try it this way......
I clearly believe creation should have its place. The more mankind creates things, the easier it should be to admit the possibility of a Creator.
As for education, it is a shame how many tax dollars are spent each year forcing more people to spend extra money to place their children in private schools. Says a lot for public education nowadays.
As for the ignorant remark: it is most likely from an unseasoned heart. Gloomy, thank you for your open-mindedness. Experienced!
It always amazes me how people try to get rid of things that questions the way they think. I don't mind both being taught and choices an option. It is a waste of your time to try and do away with the creation side of this. Why does it bother people so much I often wonder?
You guys enjoy your debate. I must place this thread on my ignore list if at all possible.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Why does it bother people so much I often wonder?

I don't care if people believe in creationism or not, it is totally up to them. I actually have my own version of it in my head. It bothers me though because there are people who want it taught in school, where it has no place to begin with. If someone wants to learn about it, let them learn it from a church, a pow-wow, a synagog, or where ever else. It is religious/spiritual/theoretical, what ever you want to call it, and does not belong in public school, and it CERTAINLY does not belong in a science class.

 

[Joesus]

If you believe in God...

Personally I'm agnostic, but I am fascinated with Judeo-Christian history, and I feel that knowledge of the Bible is essential to understanding western civilization and our current world.

That being said, the conclusion I have come to recently is that if you are a Christian (or a Jew, or a Muslim), you've got to take it seriously (your soul depends upon it). God's word and commandments are not be trifled with. Read the Old Testament and you will see just how explicit God is in his requirements. If we live in a society that permits freedom of religion, then we must also permit the "exclusivity" of said religion. The Old Testament is basically a document illustrating the rewards of serving God obediently and the (horrific) punishments of swaying from His commandments - and you don't want to cross God.

As an INFJ, you should be able to sympathize with someone's desire to stay on the good side of their God.

Personally, I like the marketplace of ideas. I like pondering the big questions. I like contemplating the nature of things. I like hearing other opinions.

So, I think Christians (who insist upon it) should be able to teach creationism exclusively (I don't want to be responsible for their apostasy). However, I don't see how teaching the broad range of thought can be harmful. It may even bring you closer to (the hypothetical) God.